About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
hillary clinton. that's what i want to ask you about it. she voted for the iraq war resolution in 2002. 2007, refused to see that vote as a police take. she has defended that since. i'm wondering if you think that is going to be a political problem for her. in 2016 if she ends up running. >> let me say a couple things. having been in the white house i realize how hard it is to govern and to make these national security decisions. it is not black and white and it never is. it never will be. i have more sympathy for the people involved than i would four years ago. with respect to secretary clinton and the democrats who made that vote, i think it is the case that that vote was a mistake. it led to this war. i don't think it will be a political liability for secretary clinton if she decides to run. her career since that vote is so extraordinary and so accomplished that i think that people will look at that time period far more than they will that vote. >> she has already paid a huge price for having made that vote. i don't know if she will pay that price again. see that? the academy folks
. remember back what bill clinton as president did when the same netanyahu was prime minister disagreed with clinton. he paid a political price because israelis loved clinton. this is not the same with obama. the president would benefit from the trust from israelis even when he has disagreements with their prime minister. not to say the president owes israelis anything. he is not their president. he is the american one. they don't deserve his love. but it would be expedient for him to gain their trust when he disagrees with the prime minister, more than when he agrees with them. >> what message is teheran taking from all this? this visit today. and when we talk about iran a year or so away from having a nuclear weapon, are we inching closer toward a military conflict? we can't be sanctioning them any more than we already are. >> i think first, a very important point for both the prime minister and president is that teheran here a similar message. it is important because in a sense we have a game of chicken going on. iranians, if they are convinced that u.s. threat for use of force is cr
in this country. when you look from president obama to president clinton to hillary clinton to rob portman to dick cheney, cleric mccaskill, jon huntsman. there are a tremendous number of federal officials, highly visible people in both parties. not only saying people should have this right, which is the moral position, but also saying something that i think creates an incredible opening for the public which is i changed my mind. people get in different ways. but that is also really different. in the civil rights era which is obviously the sort of historical precedent that people look to. the court was way out front. sometime in unanimous decisions like brown, in school busing, obviously in a lot of areas of extending rights to minorities. they were way ahead of both parties. you go back to the original civil rights raer and both parties were table because we lived in a completely racist, elite structure. and so the court was really one of the only elite institutions in the country that ran against that. while i understand the broader context, i think this is a supreme court that by that historica
clinton, of course, won the state also. perhaps that's why he wrote the forward to my book. because i ran that campaign, but nevada has historically been one that has a combination of a democratic and republican leadership in various offices. the demographics in las vegas have changed dramatically. we have many more hispanics moving into the community. much more democratic registration. that is a reason i think president obama has carried nevada the last two elections as opposed to previously when george w. bush did. >> so do you see nevada in the future becoming more and more blue, going more and more blue with the explosion of hispanics and latinos that will be there? or do you think it's going to be a swing state and go back and forth? >> i think we're always going to be in play. i think that the indications are it will be a little more blue, but it's always going to be a state in play. and it depends on the candidates, the election. it's interesting, because a small state like ours has received a lot of attention in the last several elections because we are a swing state. >> hey, gove
concerns and certainly bill clinton had as a beloved figure in israel. that is what he had not done until now. he had been here as a candidate in 2008. i was covering him there then. he had not reached out to israel's people in a personal way. and i think that's what he tried to accomplish. he did it by talking about the struggles of the palestinians and the israel business the civil rights struggle, with the fact that you israelis have fought for this land. you fought to overcome your struggles just as my children in another generation would not have had equal rights. so he really tried to make it a personal appeal. and that i think had some resonance in talking to the host of the "meet the press" here in israel and very widely known anchor. and she said the follow-up is the main concern. but that it was a very different kind of speech and very appealing to the people there in the room. >> and making that personal appeal something the president does very well. thanks again and safe travels. i want to bring you in. you wrote about some of the symbolism sort of both direct and more subtle
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5